An exploration of the ways in which issues of class and status are presented in Charles Dickens' "Great Expectations" and L.P. Hartley's "The Go-Between".

Authors Avatar

John Nickell

A-Level English Coursework

An exploration of the ways in which issues of class and status are presented in Charles Dickens’ “Great Expectations” and L.P. Hartley’s “The Go-Between”.

Both Charles Dickens’ “Great Expectations” and L.P. Hartley’s “The Go-Between” discuss the class assumptions of early Victorian England; around 1807-1823 is when most of the action can be dated too in “Great Expectations” and at the start of the  20th century, the year 1900 in “The Go-Between”. Both novels portray a class structure in decline or under threat, as the rise of trade unions and rights for women were to transform the quiet hierarchy that had existed for countless generations. In this essay I will draw out the similarities and differences in how the two authors present the issues of class and status to the reader.

Hartley often seems to place great value in the tradition and history of an ancient, aristocratic, ruling class; Dickens regards beyond all else the value of hard work. Dickens argues that social status denotes nothing but money, whereas Hartley seems to glory in the upper-classes natural superiority, such as at sport and at music: none can match Marion in skill. Hartley warns against the social mobility that makes Marion too good for Ted despite their love for each other and subverts the natural hierarchical order and security that has existed for centuries, yet Dickens denounces a society that lavishes upon the few at the exclusion of the multitude.  Dickens characters suffer under or bask in justice offered by the plot, as ‘good’ characters are rewarded and ‘bad’ characters condemned. Hartley shows little similar sympathy’s as discussed below. Dickens consciously relays no support for the idea that the upper classes are naturally morally superior; dispelling all pretentiousness to this tenuous link in the contrast between Drummle and Joe, whereas in Hartley’s “The Go-Between”, Triningham is by far and away the kindest character, whom the reader instinctively warms to, and enchants all with his natural grace and elegance, seemingly affirming the assumption of the ancient idea of the moral superiority of the wealthy, going back to the Bible story of Job in the Old Testament, where God blessed a good man with wealth. Ironically, Triningham is already displaying the injuries already done to the aristocracy, he has been forced to rent out the home his ancestors have held for generations as he himself can no longer afford to live there; he himself has lost his wealth in his property, even though temporarily. Nevertheless, the middle classes Maudlseys do not appear to have gained by their social rise at the end.

Some critics have argued that Hartley is arguing that a socially divided society is a dangerous one; that Leo’s evaporated enthusiasm for a new century so full of unfulfilled promise is systematic of unfounded hopes of a new Golden Age if society remains segregated between the haves and have-nots. That the Boer War, which scarred the aristocratic Triningham, protracted and disastrous for Britain with a devastating display of Britain’s faltering significance and importance in world affairs, is a sign of a difficult century ahead. Triningham, a representative of a dying aristocracy with unseen wounds that a display of natural elegance and grace can hide but not heal. In spite of this, I find myself wholly disagreeing with this view of Hartley’s novel “The Go-Between”. Hartley certainly does warn of the demise of the aristocracy, yet he does not rejoice in it. On the contrary, he mourns, grieves and laments the apparent loss of nobility throughout the work. Triningham is by far and away the most gracious, righteous and gallant character presented, there is only sympathy in a reader for his early death. I certainly fall on the side of Hartley strongly defending the hierarchical social order, and the aristocracy’s right to lead it. Yet it is important to do discuss other possibilities.

Triningham then represents the best features of the aristocracy. Unlike Marian, from the start and until the end, there was no ulterior motive to Triningham’s kindness: he was “as true as steel” even in the eyes of the unfaithful Marian. He is patriotic to the end too and was wounded in the defence of his countries Empire. Despite all this, in the book Hartley presents Marian displaying no reverence for Ted’s feelings, instead she is cruelly unfaithful to him whilst engaged. Every other character in the book has faults of character or of action, but Triningham is beyond such. His demise might be Hartley warning the middle-classes of the dangers involved with usurping the natural order. Even so, the story is told from Leo’s point of view, and Leo admires Triningham to such a great extent that his faults may be simply hidden from the readers view, or indeed perhaps the story is told from Leo’s point of view in order to allow Hartley to express his admiration. Even so, Leo the adolescent is also a bad judge of character and situation and so simply may be putting forward the wrong view. Be that as it may, the point still stands.

Both novels display strong social hierarchies; as in “The Go-Between” farm labourers are below Ted the “working farmer”, whereas Triningham is a “Gentleman farmer” who owns the land that others work. Social inequality is what drives the two lovers Marion and Ted, underground, with tragic consequences. In “Great Expectations” Dickens presents Joe, a skilled member of the lower classes as above Orlick, although he is below Pumblecock, who in turn is of a lower social status than Miss. Havisham. Dickens challenges this by Joe being the books ‘best’ character, while Miss. Havisham, corrupted by her past pain, infects others such as Estella in her turn. On the other hand, in Hartley’s, novel “The Go-Between”, Hartley presents the most affable, kind, pleasant and genuine character to be Viscount Triningham, who is also the highest character in the social hierarchy, while the lowest social characters, in Marcus’ mind “stink”. Dickens champions the lower classes, while Hartley champions those of higher social status.

Dickens characters appear to be judged by a steady hand of justice that deals out fair retribution on all, the characters he presents seem to ‘get what they deserve’ in some way; Estella is humbled by Drummle, who dies an early death by his horse, Miss. Havisham is burnt by her fire; “running at me , shrieking, with a whirl of fire blazing all around her, and soaring at least as many feet above her head as she was high”, Joe enjoys the contentment of a happy home and family, Biddy and Joe find utmost happiness in each other, Herbert enjoys happiness with Clara, Pip is to work hard, Wemmick marries and is happy, and even Molly, although not serving a prison term for murder, is still humiliated and can even be seen as a prisoner of Jaggers as her rights and wishes are ignored: Jaggers forces her to show her strength and she has no choice. All this appears to support the characters facing judgement on earth by the consequences of their actions, although it can be said that the states lack of mercy toward a repentant Magwitch shows an implacable, unaffected state, disregarding individual conditions.

Hartley’s characters do not seem to be served by justice intrinsic and inseparable from the plot; Denys’, a good character but never recognised by Leo as such, is treated cruelly by his relations and dies in The Great War along with Marcus, Marion still marries Triningham despite her affair and lives a long, albeit lonely, life, Triningham dies young without a child of his own to inherit his title, he brings up Ted’s son as if he were his own, while Leo is so shaken by his experience it adversely moulds the rest of his life. There seems to be little application of justice through the novels narration in “The Go-Between”. The fact that in “Great Expectations” characters appear to be judged for their behaviour, life and actions, seems to affirm Dickens great emphasis on being good, wholesome and admirable: of “Great Expectations” being a moral tale, extolling the virtues of what is good and admirable; of hard work. Characters have a duty to be fair, just and true.

The absence of this hand of justice in “The Go-Between” seems to suggest that the challenges made to the hierarchical class structure are unjustifiable, as the best character Triningham suffers and dies prematurely, presumably of unseen wounds, while Marion lives to a ripe old age in a state of denial. Hartley may be suggesting that characters should not be judged on their actions, but on their class position, as class position naturally displays those of superior aptitude, and as characters in the novel subvert this, they will find no peace. Hartley decries the treatment of Triningham, who displays the best of aristocratic values, yet mourning Ted’s death and the rise of the Maudlseys who left their natural place in society in the pursuit of their own self interest, and thus made Marion and Ted marrying impossible. In the absence of a strong hand of justice, Hartley is arguing that society needs to sort itself out; to analyse where it is, and where it is going. Social rise brings insanity, not happiness for the dictatorial Mrs. Maudlsey, and no benefit beyond artificial engagements and superficial society, and this only for a time, for the family. Marion in her unusual pursuit of Ted condemns those who say: “What a pretty couple they make if it wasn’t for the difference.” For her there is no difference, and in this way, she is enlightened. She is aware there is no choice for her but to follow class aspirations and what her family expects and wants of her, but at the same time weeps openly to Leo at not being able to follow her heart. This tragedy she imparts to Leo, and may well affirm in him social subservience; the dangers of social ambition. Leo himself finds refuge in facts, but is not in the lap of luxury at the end, but nor does he appear to mourn his lack of social rise.

In “The Go-Between” social status often defines the behaviour of the characters towards each other. Judgement is made on appearances, property and title, as this is seen as a reliable indicator of the quality of an individual’s character. In this way, Marian and Ted’s relationship may be seen in some way as liberating, as they love each other regardless of social status and Marian without attention to the superficial country life in which she so actively takes part. In “Great Expectations”, Dickens presents a society where class and status do define attitudes and relationships. Yet Dickens, through successive examples, provides evidence that this is neither an effective nor fair judge of a person’s calibre, and that an enlightened society would recognise the value of individuals by who they are, not simply in terms of monetary worth.

Moreover, Hartley chooses to tell “The Go-Between” largely from the perspective of a shy, nervous, emotionally charged, vulnerable, boy whose school seems to have denied him the expression of his childhood, consequentially leaving his wild imagination to warp events and remain oblivious to the reality of his treatment. Leo’s childhood innocence portrayed as “green” naivety by Marcus and Marion. Despite this, Leo remains loyal to the upper classes  until and even at the end, agreeing to be the messenger boy one last time; he remains subservient to the assumptions of class and status, even in there deteriorated, degenerate state a the close.

On the other hand, Dickens tells “Great Expectations” from the point of view of Pip, a social upstart unprepared to merely accept his lot, instead aspiring to a way of life he is below. Pip would have remained contented in his naivety of social inequality, as even he said. Yet for Dickens, naivety is not a defence for the maintenance of the existing social order, as how can you be truly free if innocent of the truth? Although Pip is also naïve, and the revealing and revolution of Pip from such does not do his character any good; Dickens may argue this Pip is more a product of the effect of existing social and class assumptions, that Gentleman must remain aloof. At the end, Pip is changed, his links with the working and lower classes in Magwitch and Joe have reformed him morally; the lower classes he distanced himself from have been his salvation. Once he stops daydreaming in the false reality of a match with Estella, understands and learns the lesson of what it is to be a real gentlemen as being beyond simple monetary value; he is able to understand the plot he’s in and play an active role in changing it; in working out the mystery of Estella’s parentage and trying to enable Magwitch to escape. Pip is no longer a slave to the class hierarchy and class assumptions, as shown by his sleeping in his own room at the forge again and working for his living; while Leo at the end of “The Go-Between” remains so chained.

Dickens was a social reformist and self-made gentleman, who believed in universal education for all, and worked and campaigned to achieve this aim. In "Great Expectations" he may be seen to offer a stark criticism of an unequal society by implicating the world of the rich with that of the poor, arguing that the wealth, prosperity and comfort of the few is one supported by the poverty, struggle and suffering of the multitude. For example, Magwitch a convict, has the same lawyer as the affluent Miss. Havisham, in Jaggers; a morally repugnant character who is prepared to see a guilty murderess, Molly, become his housekeeper, while he is just as comfortable to see an innocent defendant locked up.

Join now!

For Dickens, the belief in irrevocable link between wealth and morality is tenuous to say the least, and "Great Expectations" challenges this widely held view. Dickens champions the Victorian work ethic that salvation and morality lie in hard-work. Dickens wished to shift the role of a gentleman to one of a gentle man; he wanted to shift the emphasis from one of a life of luxury, learning and polished manners, to one of a sense of duty and vocational commitment. Many of Dickens ideas even became integrated later into Disraeli’s paternalistic, one-nation conservatism. Nevertheless, Dickens may not wholly align ...

This is a preview of the whole essay